Decision #01/26 - Type: Workers Compensation
Preamble
The worker's estate is appealing the decision made by the Workers Compensation Board ("WCB") that the claim is not acceptable. A file review was held on November 10, 2025 to consider the worker's appeal.
Issue
Whether or not the claim is acceptable.
Decision
The claim is not acceptable.
Background
The worker filed a Worker Hearing Loss Report with the WCB on September 16, 2011, reporting a gradual hearing loss they first became aware of in 1981 and related to their employment. The worker noted on their Report, they wore hearing protection when using loud equipment sometime in the 1970s when it became available. With respect to non-occupational noise exposure, the worker noted they were an occasional farm machinery operator but used hearing protection, an occasional handheld power tool user and a right-handed firearm user approximately once per year. It was noted that the worker was retired. Submitted with their Hearing Loss Report was an August 31, 2011 report from their treating audiologist, with a copy of an audiogram from August 30, 2011, which indicated that the worker had bilateral mild sloping to moderately-severe sensorineural hearing loss and the worker wanted to establish a claim with the WCB.
Additional employment information was requested from the worker and on July 26, 2012, the WCB received a copy of a listing of the worker's employers from 1966 to 1984. On September 15, 2012, the worker spoke with the WCB and confirmed they first noticed their hearing loss in 1981 and retired in 1984. The worker also confirmed exposure to loud noise at two previous employers in 1966 to 1976 and 1979 to 1981. The WCB investigated the noise levels with the employer who the worker had worked for in 1966 to 1976, and a copy of that noise level testing was put to the worker's file on the same date.
The worker's file was reviewed by a WCB Ear, Nose and Throat (ENT) specialist who placed an opinion on the worker's file on November 27, 2012. The specialist noted the only audiological testing on file for the worker was the August 30, 2011 audiogram, which indicated that the worker had presbycusis, being age-related hearing loss, and was not diagnostic for noise-induced hearing loss. On December 20, 2012, the WCB advised the worker that their claim was not acceptable based on the medical information on file.
On June 13, 2025, the representative for the worker’s estate requested reconsideration of the WCB's decision, noting the worker was exposed to noxious noise during their career with no hearing protection or annual hearing testing provided. As such, the representative noted their belief that the worker's claim should be accepted, and the worker should be reimbursed for the cost of hearing aids purchased prior to their passing. On July 9, 2025, the Review Office determined the worker's claim was not acceptable. The Review Office found the evidence gathered by the WCB indicated that the worker was likely exposed to noxious noise while they were employed. However, the Review Office also found the worker did not have any hearing tests conducted between 1966 and 1984 when they retired to establish any hearing loss while they were employed, with the only audiogram conducted in 2011, 27 years after they retired.
The worker's representative for the estate filed an appeal with the Appeal Commission on September 15, 2025, and a file review was arranged.
Reasons
Applicable Legislation and Policy
The Appeal Commission panels are bound by the provisions of The Workers Compensation Act (the "Act"), regulations under that Act, and the policies established by the WCB's Board of Directors. The provisions of the Act in effect as of the date of the worker’s accident are applicable.
Section 4(1) of the Act provides that where a worker suffers personal injury by accident arising out of and in the course of employment, compensation shall be paid. The Act defines “accident” in s 1(1) as follows:
"accident" means a chance event occasioned by a physical or natural cause; and includes
(a) a wilful and intentional act that is not the act of the worker,
(b) any
(i) event arising out of, and in the course of, employment, or
(ii) thing that is done and the doing of which arises out of, and in the course of, employment, and
(c) an occupational disease,
and as a result of which a worker is injured;
The WCB's Board of Directors has established Policy 44.20.50.20.01, Hearing Loss (the "Policy"), which provides, in part, that:
“Not all hearing loss is caused by exposure to noise at work. The WCB will be satisfied that hearing loss occurred at work when a worker is exposed to noxious noise at work for a minimum of two years, based generally upon an average of 85 decibels for 8 hours of exposure on a daily basis. For every increase in noise level of 3 decibels, the required exposure time will be reduced by half.”
Worker’s Position
The position of the worker is that they were exposed to levels of noise in the workplace above the WCB threshold for noise induced hearing loss claims, and that as a result they developed noise induced hearing loss.
Employer’s Position
The employer did not participate in the hearing.
Analysis
The issue before the panel is whether the claim is acceptable. To find that the claim is acceptable, the panel would have to determine that the worker’s hearing loss was the result of exposure to noise in the workplace. The panel was not able to make such a finding based on the evidence before us, as outlined in the reasons that follow.
The panel acknowledges the evidence indicating that the worker was exposed to loud noise during portions of their employment between 1966 and 1981. The panel further notes the worker’s reporting that they first became aware of hearing loss symptoms in approximately 1981, and that hearing protection was not routinely available during the earlier years of their employment. The panel accepts that workplace noise exposure was present to some degree.
However, exposure to noise alone is not sufficient to establish entitlement. The Policy requires not only noxious noise exposure meeting defined thresholds, but also medical evidence demonstrating that the worker has hearing loss consistent with noise-induced hearing loss and that such hearing loss is causally related to workplace exposure.
The only audiological evidence before the panel is the August 30, 2011 audiogram, conducted approximately 27 years after the worker retired from employment. There are no hearing tests from the period of active employment or from a time proximate to retirement that would demonstrate the onset or progression of hearing loss during the years of occupational exposure. The absence of contemporaneous audiometric testing significantly limits the panel’s ability to establish a causal relationship between the worker’s employment and their hearing loss.
The panel places significant weight on the opinion of the WCB ENT specialist dated November 27, 2012. The specialist reviewed the available medical evidence and concluded that the 2011 audiogram demonstrated presbycusis, or age-related hearing loss, and was not diagnostic of noise-induced hearing loss. There is no contrary medical opinion on file attributing the worker’s hearing loss to occupational noise exposure.
The panel has also considered the worker’s reported non-occupational noise exposure, including farm machinery use, handheld power tool use, and firearm use, albeit described as occasional and with hearing protection. While these exposures alone may not be determinative, they further complicate the ability to attribute the worker’s hearing loss specifically to workplace noise in the absence of objective evidence from the relevant time period.
While the panel is sympathetic to the worker’s circumstances and accepts that they may have been exposed to significant noise during their employment, the standard of proof requires more than a possibility or suspicion of a work-related cause. On a balance of probabilities, the evidence does not establish that the worker’s hearing loss was noise-induced or that it arose out of and in the course of their employment as required by the Act and Policy.
Accordingly, the panel finds that the worker’s hearing loss cannot be causally linked to workplace noise exposure on a balance of probabilities. The claim is therefore not acceptable, and the worker’s appeal is dismissed.
Panel Members
R. Lemieux Howard, Presiding Officer
J. Peterson, Commissioner
M. Kernaghan, Commissioner
Recording Secretary, J. Lee
R. Lemieux Howard - Presiding Officer
(on behalf of the panel)
Signed at Winnipeg this 8th day of January, 2026